BUFORA Bulletin - No 20 - Jan 1986

Magazine Overview

This issue of the BUFORA Bulletin, dated January 1986 and designated No. 20, is published by BUFORA LTD, the British UFO Research Association. The cover features a striking black and white image of a child pointing at a sky with several small, bright objects, under the prominent title 'BUFORA BULLETIN'. The publication aims to encourage, promote, and conduct unbiased scientific research into UFO phenomena, collect and disseminate related evidence, and coordinate UFO research within the UK and globally.

Key Articles and Content

UFO CONTACTS - Waking Lucid Dreams?

By Jenny Randles, this article explores the author's perception of the UFO phenomenon, distinguishing between UAPs (Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena) and EXOTIC UFOs. UAPs are described as objective, energetic phenomena, while EXOTIC UFOs are witness-centered and may be imperceptible to others, often lacking tangible evidence. Randles proposes the 'QC State' (Quasi-Conscious State) as a condition where witnesses experience EXOTIC UFOs, characterized by a temporary self-induced sensory deprivation where the mind tunes into subconscious levels. The 'OZ Factor' is identified as a symptom of this state. The article posits that the reality of EXOTIC encounters is complex, being neither purely imaginary nor entirely objective, but an intermediary aspect of reality. It suggests that the 'aliens' in abduction scenarios might originate from 'inner space' rather than 'outer space'. The concept of a spectrum of reality, blending from objective to subjective, is introduced, with the QC State positioned between Normal Reality Mode (NRM) and Synchronistic Reality Mode (SRM). The author likens the QC Experience to a 'waking lucid dream', where external input can influence the subjective imagery.

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH)

Authored by Paul Whitehead, this piece examines the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) for UFOs, noting its recent challenges from more elaborate theories. Whitehead, a journalist with interests in computer technology and space travel, discusses the possibility of advanced optical technology and speculates on the future of space exploration. He touches upon 'birth trauma' and 'mass, international hallucinations' as alternative explanations for UFO phenomena but finds them flawed. The article suggests that despite its unusual nature, the ETH warrants serious consideration, especially in light of declassified documents and scientific acknowledgements of potential intelligent life in the galaxy. It mentions Professor Freeman Dyson's work on propulsion systems and the possibility of artificial planets and 'scout' ships.

Search for Intelligence

This section features insights from Professor Archibald Fry, who believes intelligent life is common in the galaxy and anticipates radio contact within a decade. He suggests Earth might be under 'quarantine' by aliens. The article also references Dr. Frank Drake, known for Project Ozma, who predicts a high number of civilizations in our galaxy and addresses the question of why no broadcasts have been received. The discussion touches upon the challenges of finding and communicating with extraterrestrial intelligence.

Time Anomaly

This article, likely by the same author as the 'QC State' discussion, explores the 'time anomaly' often reported in abduction cases. It suggests that after a QC Experience, witnesses may slip into normal dream sleep and awaken later, having forgotten the experience, leading to a perceived time lapse. The article concludes that 'real' EXOTIC UFOs may not exist, but rather that CE4 cases are triggered by mundane objects (like Venus or the Moon) which then lead to a QC Experience that impresses a message, implying that such messages are being communicated to Earth through means other than outer space.

Organizational Information

Page 2 provides a detailed listing of BUFORA's Council and officers for the 1985-86 period. Key roles include President (The Rt. Hon Earl of Clancarty), Vice-Presidents, Council Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Council Members, Secretary to Council, Treasurer, Membership Secretary, Director of Publications and Editor (John E. Barrett), Association's Historian (Lionel E. Beer), Librarian (Robin Lindsey), Director of Research (Stephen Gamble), Director of Investigations (Miss Jenny Randles), and Training Officer (Ken Phillips). Contact addresses and some telephone numbers are provided for these individuals.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the nature of UFO experiences, consciousness, and the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. The editorial stance, particularly from Jenny Randles, leans towards a psychological and consciousness-based interpretation of many UFO encounters, proposing the 'QC State' and 'waking lucid dreams' as frameworks for understanding. While not entirely dismissing the possibility of external intelligence, the focus is on how human consciousness interacts with and interprets phenomena. The issue also highlights BUFORA's commitment to scientific research and data dissemination within the UFO field, while also engaging with broader scientific discussions on SETI and the potential for life beyond Earth.

This issue of NORTHERN UFO NEWS, dated September/October 1985, features a cover story titled "THE PETER DAY FILM - A New Theory" by Jenny Randles. The magazine delves into topics related to extraterrestrial intelligence, UFO phenomena, and scientific investigation.

Evolution and Sophisticated Technology

The issue begins by discussing the concept of technological civilizations evolving on other planets, referencing the work of Dr. Drake. It posits that the rate of star formation is a key factor, with astronomers estimating approximately one new star per year forming planetary systems. The article suggests that "virtually every star" may have a solar system, and that life would arise on these planets, leading to intelligence and technological societies. Dr. Drake's conclusion is that the galaxy probably produces about one new technological civilization per year.

Further speculation covers the transmission of light and radio waves by these civilizations. The challenge for Earth is knowing where to point instruments and which frequencies to listen to. It's noted that many civilizations might not transmit for long periods, conserving energy. Increased technological sophistication could also make them harder to detect, for example, through the spread of cable television and fiber optics, and a reduction in military radar systems, leading to less artificial radiation 'noise'. Many older, advanced civilizations might still exist but be more difficult to find.

The Search Has Begun (SETI)

The projected number of detectable advanced civilizations is estimated at 10,000, which is minute compared to the number of stars in the galaxy. The search for intelligent signals is ongoing but requires more practical methods and sophisticated radio transmitters capable of multiple scans across many frequencies. The ultimate goal is a receiver system that can monitor a billion channels at once. The number of direction/radio frequency combinations to test is nearly one million, and each might require millions or billions of scans. Additional problems include the assumption that transmissions are not continuous, requiring searches for on/off times, and the need to search for signals from various directions and polarizations. The radio frequency spectrum is vast, with potentially one hundred million frequencies to search. Despite these challenges, money is available for SETI projects, with initiatives like the IRAS satellite detecting material around stars that may be solar systems, and the upcoming Hipparchus satellite to search nearby stars. NASA plans to use telescopes with computer-aided scanners to investigate promising planetary systems.

The UFO Myth

Steuart Campbell contributes an article defining a myth as a story offering an explanation for phenomena. He categorizes UFOs as belonging to a class of myths not related to observation, similar to myths about fairies or ghosts. Campbell defines a UFO as an aerial craft of extraterrestrial or unknown origin, controlled by alien beings. He argues that "ufoism" is a belief system centered on the idea that alien civilizations monitor human progress. Initially thought to be from Mars, these aliens are now believed to originate from planets orbiting distant stars. Ufoism assumes these aliens are highly advanced, possess superhuman powers, and have advanced mechanisms. The article details various beliefs within ufoism, including claims of aliens creating mankind, human achievements being alien work, modern science being a lie, and governments possessing crashed UFOs.

Campbell traces the origins of ufoism to the post-1947 era in the western USA, coinciding with the coining of the term 'flying saucer.' He suggests that initial reports might have been misperceptions of conventional sights during a time of public apprehension and interest in new weapons and space travel. The growth of ufoism was aided by military secrecy. The article criticizes the failure to define terms, leading to confusion, and highlights how organizations like MUFON accepted the existence of UFOs without proper definition. Campbell argues that BUFORA's foundation is based on the UFO myth, and that investigations should focus on reports of unidentified phenomena rather than assuming alien craft exist. He contends that no substantial evidence for UFOs has ever been found, and that unexplained cases are likely due to lack of data, hoaxes, or the psychological state of witnesses.

Culpability

Campbell suggests that while other intelligences may exist in the galaxy, they have not discovered us, and vice versa. He posits that humans and aliens may never meet due to physical obstacles. Ufoism is described as a delusion born of misperception and imagination, with followers wasting their time. Some ufoists are considered more culpable for propagating the myth and misleading others, labeling ufoism as a modern myth or space-legend.

The Strange Case of a "Remarkable Double Encounter"

Manfred Cassirer details a case investigated by Professor Hynek's Center for UFO Studies, involving a "remarkable double encounter" reported by Nanette Morrison and her mother in March/April 1982. Professor Hynek considered it one of the closest he had come to a CE-1 event. The witnesses are described as intelligent and articulate. The first sighting involved a large, brilliant light in the sky, initially attributed to a plane but escalating to a hovering "craft" with multiple illuminated compartments. The second sighting, shortly after a phone call with Hynek, involved a "huge object" soundlessly suspended above the horizon.

Cassirer notes that Professor Ian Stevenson, an authority on spontaneous anomalies, was also approached. Stevenson interviewed the mother and daughter, but was reluctant to circulate transcripts. Bruce Martin, a Professor of Chemistry, criticized Hynek's investigation, particularly his reliance on telephone interviews and his publication of the case. Martin suggested that the sightings could be explained by conventional phenomena, such as aircraft landing at the airport, especially given the proximity of the Morrison residence to the airport, which was closer than initially reported.

The Peter Day Film - A New Theory

Jenny Randles discusses the case of Peter Day, a building surveyor who filmed an object on January 11, 1973. The film, taken near Cuddington, Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire, shows a "classic orange ball of light." The object vanished instantly, and the film was evaluated by Kodak as showing a "fireball." A seminar involving atmospheric physicists and ball lightning specialists was held, with some suggesting it might be ball lightning. An MoD munitions expert suggested it could be a helicopter with an orange searchlight, but this was later found to be unlikely.

Conference Announcement

BUFORA announced a two-day conference to be held in London from Saturday, August 23rd to Monday, August 25th, 1986.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine exhibits a critical stance towards the "UFO myth," emphasizing the importance of scientific investigation, proper definitions, and the elimination of conventional explanations. While acknowledging the existence of unexplained phenomena and the ongoing search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), the publication leans towards skepticism regarding many UFO claims, attributing them to misperceptions, hoaxes, or psychological factors. The articles highlight the challenges in both SETI and UFO research, stressing the need for rigorous methodology and objective analysis. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious inquiry, distinguishing between genuine anomalies and unsubstantiated beliefs.

This issue of FLYING SAUCER REVIEW, dated May 1985, features a collection of articles and letters discussing various UFO phenomena, investigative approaches, and prevailing theories within the ufology community. The content ranges from detailed case studies to critical analyses of investigative methods and the broader implications of UFO research.

The Upper Heyford F-111 Crash Case

This section revisits the Upper Heyford UFO sighting, presenting a new investigation by SCUFORI and Ken Phillips from BUFORA. Their two-year study suggests that the UFO might have been an F-111 aircraft from USAF Upper Heyford that crashed on the same morning. The investigation highlights that the witness, PD, had initially insisted his wife heard of the crash on the AM news, negating the possibility of him seeing the jet at 9:05 AM. SCUFORI's research indicates the F-111 crashed at 9:46 AM in North Crawley, approximately 30 miles away. Eye-witnesses reported the jet plunging vertically and on fire, though official data on the crash reason is withheld by the USAF and MOD. Some witnesses at Bletchley reported the jet circling for 40 minutes. SCUFORI concludes that the UFO must be the F-111, arguing it's improbable for two unusual events to occur simultaneously in the same area. However, the article points out that SCUFORI does not explain why the object on the film bears no resemblance to an F-111, and questions the explanation if the orange ball on the film is an F-111 on fire, as it would have impacted immediately.

SCUFORI suggests either PD's timings are wrong, or a small fire broke out previously, leading to the emergency. The article acknowledges the logic in SCUFORI's argument but raises significant problems with the F-111 solution. It notes that PD did not film the object later than 9:10 AM, and other witnesses' testimonies place the time between 7:00-9:05 AM. The article also questions the F-111 identification due to the lack of visible structure behind the orange ball and the consistent testimony of eight girls and a teacher who described a rotating, hovering, and moving 'beachball'-like object. Weather data indicates visibility of 7-9km, making a silent F-111 difficult to conceive. The author concludes that while SCUFORI has introduced new elements, the case is not definitively solved.

CE2s and CE3s: UFO Encounters and Contacts

Brendan Taylor's series continues with Part 2 and 3, focusing on CE2 (Close Encounter of the Second Kind) and CE3 (Close Encounter of the Third Kind) phenomena. CE2 reports involve sightings of objects and occupants without physical contact. Objects are described as two plates or cylindrical. Four cases are presented:

1. New Mexico, USA (April 24, 1964): A police patrolman chased a speeding car, heard an explosion, and saw a blue flame. He found an egg-shaped object on the ground with two small figures in white overalls beside it. The object took off south-westerly.
2. Wales, UK (April 14, 1976): Seven children playing in a park saw a brilliant green and silver, round object that moved in all directions, mirroring their movements. They ran away in fright.
3. UK (May 3, 1977): A man observed a strange object hovering over a forest. Police investigating saw a pulsating bright red light, shaped like a bell tent, which dissolved. Later, one officer saw a white crescent-shaped object that also dissolved. A smell of burning was noted.
4. Houston, Texas, USA (December 29, 1980): Three people in a car saw a bright light that resolved into a diamond-shaped object with flames shooting from its underside, causing intense heat that burnt their skin and hurt their eyes. Helicopters later flew over. The witnesses experienced sunburn and sickness for two months.

Characteristics of CE2 reports include strange animal behavior, objects dissolving, visible occupants, mischievous behavior, car engines ceasing to function, visible traces on the ground, and strange smells or illnesses. The article notes that animals may react to sounds inaudible to humans. Objects dissolving suggest they might not be solid. Occupants vary in size. Power generation can be affected. Smells range from burning to perfume. Illnesses can be physical or mental, potentially involving personality changes.

CE3 reports, or 'contacts', are described as the most intriguing. Three cases are detailed:

1. Birmingham, UK (1957): A woman saw a tall, fair male figure in a tight garment in her fireplace. The figure communicated mentally, stating he was from another world seeking Titanium, and then disappeared.
2. USA (1961): Betty and Barney Hill experienced a bright object, a bleeping sound, and memory loss. Hypnosis revealed a contact experience where they were taken from their car into a craft for a medical examination by beings with elongated eyes and thin lips.
3. UK (1978): A couple and their daughters saw a bright light, experienced illness, and dreams of being taken aboard a spacecraft. Hypnosis revealed they were taken into a craft for medical examinations by 5ft tall beings in silver uniforms. They were given a tour and spoken to in English.

Contacts are divided into physical and mental categories.

The Silent Conspiracy vs. Statistical Realities

Jenny Randles addresses concerns about the perceived lack of interest in UFOs, attributing it to a real depression in the field, with books selling poorly and publishers wary. She notes BUFORA's financial struggles due to a small membership. Gordon Creighton's view that UFO interest is suppressed by political and alien forces, leading to books being removed from libraries, is presented. Randles finds these notions 'crackpot' and 'inexplicable', contrasting them with ufologists like J. Allen Hynek and John Keel who have accepted figure-head positions.

Randles also discusses the decrease in reported UFO sightings, suggesting it's due to better public education and fewer misidentifications, rather than a lack of phenomena. She notes that the proportion of unexplained cases has risen, indicating the real UFO phenomenon persists. She argues that investigators have become more skilled, focusing on promising cases, which might create an artificial impression of increased evidence. She dismisses the 'silent conspiracy' theory as a dangerous myth.

Steuart Campbell, in a letter, refutes Brendan Taylor's claims about meteors and fireballs, stating they are inaccurate. He criticizes Taylor's statistical conclusions drawn from too few reports.

Michael Wootten, in another letter, praises Brendan Taylor's article on UFO statistics, finding his analysis of hourly distributions accurate and validating his work. Wootten encourages BUFORA members to engage in ufology.

John Paynter, regarding 'Identical Craft?', suggests that photographs of Howard Menger and George Adamski show the same vehicle, likely terrestrial and created in the 1950s to gauge public reaction.

Ian Ridpath, in a letter, agrees with a conclusion that Colonel Halt and his men were watching the Orford Ness lighthouse, not a UFO, during the Rendlesham Forest incident. He argues that if the airmen mistook the lighthouse for a UFO, then the Halt memo, which refers to the sighting, is part of a cover-up. Ridpath questions Jenny Randles' assertion that the lighthouse theory is invalid and criticizes her stance on radiation readings at the alleged landing site.

Jenny Randles replies, stating that Ridpath's letter consists of rhetoric and accusations, and that her own argument discredits the evidence. She suggests that the simplest explanation for Rendlesham—the Halt memo, tape, and police accounts being genuine—is the correct one, and that the flashing light was the lighthouse.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue grapples with the credibility of UFO evidence, the methodologies of investigation, and the prevalence of conspiracy theories versus logical explanations. There's a clear tension between those who believe in a deliberate suppression of UFO information (the 'silent conspiracy') and those who advocate for rigorous, evidence-based analysis, often debunking claims of suppression. The magazine seems to lean towards a more critical and analytical approach, questioning extraordinary claims and seeking rational explanations, while acknowledging the persistence of unexplained phenomena. The role of witness testimony, photographic evidence, and statistical analysis are all examined, with differing opinions presented through letters and articles. The overall stance appears to be one of cautious investigation, aiming to separate fact from speculation within the complex field of ufology.

Title: UFO DATA REVIEW
Issue: 1986
Publisher: BUFORA
Country: UK
Date: 1986

This issue of UFO DATA REVIEW, published by BUFORA, features a collection of articles, correspondence, and meeting reports related to UFO research. The content reflects ongoing debates within the UFO community, particularly concerning investigative methodologies and the interpretation of specific cases.

Rendlesham Forest Case Debate

The issue delves into the Rendlesham Forest case, with Paul Fuller expressing his integrity and disagreement with Ian Ridpath's explanation. Fuller believes that on December 29th, 1980, Colonel Halt was aware that the men under his command were seeing the lighthouse and that the tape recording was engineered for release. He argues that the precise bearings on the tape point to Urford Ness and suggests a ploy to create a misperception hypothesis. Fuller criticizes the idea that the events of the second night are linked to the first, finding the testimony from the first night vastly stranger. He questions why Ridpath and the media are not pushing for an investigation into the 'Yanks' if their defense is in the hands of incompetent individuals. Fuller also refutes Ridpath's circular logic that if the Halt tape is suspect, so is the Halt memo, discrediting the evidence. He points out that his own investigation with Brenda and Dot between January 1981 and June 1983 was conducted independently of Halt's memo. Fuller suggests that Halt's role was primarily that of a 'disinformation officer,' noting his extended stay at Bentwaters and his timing of departure coinciding with the NEWS OF THE WORLD's UFO crash story. He asserts that he has presented numerous facts mitigating against Ridpath's lighthouse hypothesis.

Fuller further laments that a UFO publication like MAGONIA, which supposedly defends truth, refused to print his reply to Ian Ridpath's explanation. He offers a 3,500-word article titled "GROUNDING THE LIGHTHOUSE" for 80p, which he believes contains logical sense and counter-arguments to Ridpath's four-part theory, including the meteor attraction, seeing the lighthouse, rabbit scrapings for ground holes, and insignificant radiation traces. Fuller emphasizes the significance of damage to the tree canopy, suggesting something fell through, and questions the 'rabbit theory.' He also deplores Ridpath's accusation that he 'shamefully' 'never investigated' the radiation readings, stating that while readings of 2-3-4 units are not significant, those within the indentations, more than twice that, are significant according to a plant biologist and an MoD weapons expert.

Regarding Ridpath's challenge about his 'rough' calculations that lights were inside the forest, Fuller clarifies he is an observer who wrote up the case. He hopes Dot Street will publish witness locations and directions supporting military sightings inside the forest. Fuller comments on his own travels and observations, noting that Gordon Levett's observation at Sudbourne is not directly correlative but involves something other than the lighthouse. He mentions the Webb family and Arthur Smekle as witnesses who saw lights towards the forest, from which the lighthouse is not visible. Fuller concludes that if one sees a light looking south in a dense forest, an invisible lighthouse to the east is improbable.

The Pennine Mystery Debate

Steuart Campbell writes to address Jenny Randles' claims about the Pennine area. Campbell disputes Randles' assertion that she never claimed anything 'particularly special' about the Pennine area. He quotes the book blurb of "The Pennine Mystery" mentioning a 'wave of UFO sightings' and Randles' article stating that 'every UFO investigator in the north (of England) knew well that a "specific "Pennine" mystery exists'.' Campbell also cites Randles' conclusion that the geological structure of the Pennines makes it a 'UFO window.' He questions why Randles denies attributing special characteristics to the area and why she reacts defensively to his criticism. Campbell suggests that her latest rejection of the 'window' idea might be an admission that there was no good reason to write about the area.

Jenny Randles replies, calling Campbell's letter 'semantic-filled' and brief. She reiterates that the Pennine area is a 'window zone' in the sense that ufologists draw conclusions from evidence. She acknowledges that window areas abound globally but argues that the Pennine area was a prime candidate for a book due to a 'wave' of sightings or 'extraordinary' events. She states she wrote the book as a practical expression of theoretical ideas. Randles dismisses Campbell's assertion that she wrote the book for no good reason as 'insulting and absurd.' Regarding physicists, philosophers, and time travel, Randles mentions ongoing research in Quantum Physics suggesting faster-than-light travel is hypothetically possible. She notes that Einstein and Lorentz did not argue against it, only at the speed of light. She also mentions scientists like Dr. Paul Davies having an open mind and distinguishes between time travel and humans time-travelling, as well as the concept of logical paradoxes.

BUFORA's Progress and Methodology

Paul Fuller congratulates BUFORA RIC Mike Wootten on his article "A Statistical Overview 1980-82," highlighting its breakthrough in providing researchers with instant access to UFO data that can be stored, analyzed, and cross-checked. He notes that while only a few years' reports have been coded, this task will take years to complete. Fuller emphasizes BUFORA's attempt to apply the model and language of science, stating that adopting standard investigative techniques is crucial for the scientific establishment to take UFO claims seriously and provide resources. He believes that by adopting scientific standards, BUFORA can prepare quantitative analyses for scientific journals and, by comparing its database with those in other countries, replicate characteristics pointing to the true nature of the UFO phenomenon. As a statistician, Fuller stresses the value of Wootten's work and urges support for him.

Steve Gamble, in "Getting There," uses the analogy of British Rail's advertising slogan to describe BUFORA's gradually improving image. He highlights the case indexing project led by Mike Wootten, assisted by Paul Fuller and Michael Lewis, which aims to produce an index of all BUFORA case reports. The index includes reference number, date, location, and basic details of sighted objects. Reports from 1980-1982 have been indexed, with partial information from 1983-1985. The team is also working on earlier cases. Gamble notes the useful application of the database, such as identifying potential meteor or fireball cases for the British Astronomical Association. He also mentions using the database to assist an investigator in Hull with a case of a UFO following a car, which led to receiving a detailed report on a previously unknown case. Gamble thanks Wootten and his colleagues for their hard work, illustrating BUFORA's progress.

NIC Meeting Report (November 2, 1985)

The NIC meeting report details several key discussions and decisions. Nirel Smith was granted AJ status for North London. Anthony Ollerenshaw, a retired doctor specializing in blood disorders, was accepted as a consultant. New probationary investigators were accepted: Jenny Campbell, Les Spanswicj, and Tony Mann. The Photo Case Policy was reviewed, with options for analysis including 35mm analysis by Tony Marshall, 16mm film analysis by Roger Chinnery, and potential computer enhancement. A three-man team was formed to suggest the best route forward. The Fulham photo case will be used as a test, and an anonymous movie film is being tested to determine if it shows a SeaCat missile. Investigations revealed that an airshow occurred on the date in question, with the Red Arrows participating, leading to caution about the film.

Problems with in-process cases were discussed, with a reminder that the Director of Investigations must be notified if a case is aborted. The issue of Mrs. Oxenbury's contact with investigators was raised. Mike Wootten showed a video of an object seen over the South Bank, which proved to be a novel type of kite. Wootten agreed to explore using the kite in a controlled IFO experiment. Paul Fuller will draw up a questionnaire for eye-witnesses to aid in understanding perception factors. Dr. Alex Keul suggested that the Linda Jones case should not progress to hypnosis. Fuller reported on attempts to find rational solutions to 'mystery circles,' noting a meeting where the RAF stated a gossamer substance was found inside one ring. Jenny Randles raised public relations issues, with "New Scientist" accusing BUFORA of creating the UFO myth. A decision was made to publish a definitive paper to send to media sources. The Peter Day movie film was debated, with a public debate planned for a future BUFORA lecture.

Code of Practice and Letters

Arnold West, Chairman of BUFORA, addresses the Code of Practice, stating it was designed to guide lone investigators and organized bodies. He notes that its supervision has devolved upon the NIC and that acceptance is voluntary. Bodies subscribing to the Code require their investigators to observe it and can withdraw investigator status from non-complying members. Specialized techniques like Polygraph tests, Truth Drugs, and Hypnosis were introduced to control their use, and West regrets that hypnosis was singled out for special mention, believing such techniques should not be part of normal UFO investigation. Consent to Publish is intended to protect investigators and UFO bodies from damages claims if a witness changes their mind. West suggests a review of the Code to clearly define 'UFO organization,' 'lone investigator,' 'scientific interest,' and 'commercial interest,' and to supply appropriate guidelines. He welcomes constructive proposals for a revised Code.

In a letter, Mike Wootten notes that Steuart Campbell did not claim to identify every sighting but rather that he had yet to find a Scottish case that could not be explained conventionally. Wootten agrees that some reports may remain unexplained due to inadequate data and that explanations may emerge later. He suggests that a procedure for re-evaluation of old cases is needed and asks Campbell to send him a print-out of the 24 cases he refers to for closer examination. Wootten points out that Campbell's statement that UFOs don't exist contradicts his continued investigation. Wootten also finds Campbell's meaning difficult to comprehend after multiple readings.

Mike Wootten replies to Steuart Campbell, stating that if an investigator concludes a case as unexplained, it implies thorough investigation. He agrees that uncertainty exists in evaluations but considers returning an evaluation of 'insufficient data' when a UFO is involved as investigating malpractice. Wootten will send Campbell a print-out of the cases in question for re-evaluation. He disagrees that the database is useless, describing it as a crude electronic card index system for research, allowing cases to be sorted and located quickly. Wootten emphasizes the extensive work involved in setting up the database and suggests Campbell needs to get his hands dirty with the practical aspects of research.

Book Reviews and Publications

Nigel Watson reviews "THE MARK OF THE BEAST" by Sydney Watson, a book written in 1911 and reprinted, which anticipates the Antichrist and its ramifications. Watson describes the book as pompous cant, criticizing its emphasis on punishment, sin, and purgatory, and its anti-Semitic undertones. He contrasts it with Charlotte Bronte's work and Aleister Crowley's opposing philosophy. Watson also reviews "UFOS: NAZI SECRET WEAPON?" by Mattern Friedrich, which he describes as entertaining but with a wish to create a paradise on earth through UFOs and Hitler. He notes that both books are millennial and, combined with anti-Semitism, reflect Norman Cohm's view on mass disorientation fostering the demonization of Jews.

Watson also mentions W. A. Harbinson's novel "GENESIS" as a better guide to the subject of UFOs and secret weapons. He notes that "UFOS: NAZI SECRET WEAPONS?" contains technical drawings and photographs.

Lecture Programme and Membership

The issue includes a lecture programme for BUFORA meetings at the London Business School for the remainder of 1986. Lectures are held on the first Saturday of each month, beginning at 6:30 pm. Topics include "UFOs in Norway and France," "Psychotronics," and a "Review of ETH 1947-1986." The entrance fee is £1 for members and £2.50 for non-members.

Miss Pam Kennedy, BUFORA's Membership Secretary since 1978, is retiring in March 1986 and will be succeeded by Mr. Norman Oliver, who was elected to Council in December 1985 and previously served as editor of the JOURNAL.

Editorial Stance

The British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) states that it does not hold or express corporate views on UFO phenomena, and contributions reflect only the views of the editor or the author(s). Original material is copyright to the contributor and BUFORA.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

Recurring themes in this issue include the critical analysis of UFO cases, the importance of scientific methodology in research, and the internal debates within BUFORA regarding investigative practices and the interpretation of evidence. The editorial stance, as stated by BUFORA, is that the organization does not endorse specific views on UFO phenomena, with contributions representing individual authors' perspectives. There is a clear emphasis on rigorous investigation, data analysis, and the challenges of establishing credibility within the scientific community.